Another_Reason_for_Schools_to_Ban_Genetically_Engineered_Foods

[Guest guest]

> Subject:

>

Another_Reason_for_Schools_to_Ban_Genetically_Engineered_Foods

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Sat, 4 Sep 2004 11:32:44 +0100

 

>

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> ---

> excerpt: " ...animal nutrition studies are typically

> conducted on young, developing animals. After the

> feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied

> under magnification. If scientists used mature

> animals instead of young ones, even severe

> nutritional problems might not be detected. The

> Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young

> ones.

>

> " They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein

> 10- or 12-fold before feeding the animals. And they

> never weighed the organs or examined them under a

> microscope. The study, which is the only major

> animal feeding study on GM soy ever published, is

> dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding

> problems. "

> ---

 

> Newsletter on GM Foods, September issue: Spilling

> the Beans

> Institute for Responsible Technology

>

> Another Reason for Schools to Ban

> Genetically Engineered Foods

>

> By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

>

> Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced

> their cafeteria's processed foods with wholesome,

> nutritious food, the school was described as

> out-of-control. There were weapons violations,

> student disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time.

> After the change in school meals, the students were

> calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more

> weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions,

> dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and

> improved behavior has lasted for seven years, and

> now other schools are changing their meal programs

> with similar results.

>

> Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support

> for their new diet by conducting a cruel and unusual

> experiment with three mice. They fed them the junk

> food that kids in other high schools eat everyday.

> The mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally

> different than the three mice in the

> neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good

> karma; they were fed nutritious whole foods and

> behaved like mice. They slept during the day

> inside their cardboard tube, played with each other,

> and acted very mouse-like. The junk food mice, on

> the other hand, destroyed their cardboard

> tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with

> each other, fought often, and two mice eventually

> killed the third and ate it. After the three

> month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two

> surviving junk food mice with a diet of whole foods.

> After about three weeks, the mice came

> around.

>

> Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every

> year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin,

> but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the

> first day of junk food, the mice's behavior " changes

> drastically. " They become lazy, antisocial, and

> nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to

> three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to

> normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the

> experiment again a few months later with the same

> mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the

> junk food.

>

> Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group

> of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and soy, and

> another group the non-GM variety. The GM

> mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew

> into their own parts of the cage. When the student

> tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved

> neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent

> fear and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the

> GM group was found dead at the end of the

> experiment.

>

> It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to

> the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also contained

> genetically modified ingredients. And although the

> Appleton school lunch program did not specifically

> attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway.

> That's because GM foods such as soy and corn and

> their derivatives are largely found in processed

> foods. So when the school

> switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all

> ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out

> automatically.

>

> Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the

> behavior of humans or animals? It would certainly be

> irresponsible to say so on the basis of a single

> student mice experiment and the results at Appleton.

> On the other hand, it is equally irresponsible to

> say that it doesn't.

>

> We are just beginning to understand the influence of

> food on behavior. A study in Science in December

> 2002 concluded that " food molecules act like

> hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering

> cell division. The molecules can cause mental

> imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and

> hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness. "

> The problem is we do not know which food molecules

> have what effect. The bigger problem is that the

> composition of GM foods can change radically without

> our knowledge.

>

> Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into

> their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just

> snap into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted,

> irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a

> gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a

> single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5

> percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of

> protein they were producing. Not only is that huge

> in itself, but these changes can multiply

> through complex interactions down the line.

>

> In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in

> the composition of GM foods, they are typically

> measured for only a small number of known nutrient

> levels. But even if we could identify all the

> changed compounds, at this point we wouldn't know

> which might be responsible for the antisocial nature

> of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning

> to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now

> know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries

> may revive the brain's neural communication system,

> and the antioxidant

> found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce

> heart disease. But what about other valuable

> compounds we don't know about that might change or

> disappear in GM varieties?

>

> Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on

> the market, independent researchers published a

> study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less

> cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has

> changed that we don't know about? [Monsanto

> responded with its own study, which concluded that

> soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even

> carry out a statistical analysis. They failed to

> disclose, however, that the laboratory that

> conducted Monsanto's experiment had been instructed

> to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens -

> one that had been replaced due to its highly

> variable results.]

>

> In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal

> of Nutrition that concluded in the title, " The

> composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean

> seeds is equivalent to that of conventional

> soybeans. " The study only compared a small number of

> nutrients and a close look at their charts

> revealed significant differences in the fat, ash,

> and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy meal

> contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a

> well-known soy allergen. The study also used

> questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are

> routinely conducted on plants grown in identical

> conditions so that variables such as weather and

> soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in

> plant composition could be easily missed. In

> Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely

> varying climates and geography.

>

> Although one of their trials was a side-by-side

> comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some

> reason the results were left out of the paper

> altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the

> missing data in the archives of the Journal of

> Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the

> scientists left them out. The GM soy showed

> significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid,

> and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also,

> toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the

> amount of a lectin that may block the body's ability

> to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the

> toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the

> amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the

> allergen may survive cooking more in the GM

> variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in

> soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was

> introduced.)

>

> We don't know all the changes that occur with

> genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are not

> the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports

> from all over North America describe how several

> types of animals, when given a choice, avoided

> eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk,

> deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact,

> the Dutch student mentioned above first determined

> that his mice had a two-to-one preference for non-GM

> before forcing half of them to eat only the

> engineered variety.

>

> Differences in GM food will likely have a much

> larger impact on children. They are three to four

> times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they

> convert more of the food into body-building

> material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can

> result in developmental problems. For this reason,

> animal

> nutrition studies are typically conducted on young,

> developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs

> are weighed and often studied under magnification.

> If scientists used mature animals instead of young

> ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be

> detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals

> instead of young ones.

>

> They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein

> 10- or 12-fold before feeding the animals. And they

> never weighed the organs or examined them

> under a microscope. The study, which is the only

> major animal feeding study on GM soy ever published,

> is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding

> problems.

>

> Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment

> going on - an uncontrolled one which we are all a

> part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without

> knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our

> behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools

> around the world, particularly in Europe, have

> decided not to let their kids be used as guinea

> pigs. They have banned GM foods.

>

> The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods

> is only one of several reasons why these foods may

> be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse (see

> http://www.seedsofdeception.com). With the epidemic

> of obesity and diabetes and with the results in

> Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the

> critical role that diet plays. When making changes

> in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a

> priority.

>

> ---

>

> A videotape on changing school meals, including

> footage from Appleton, will be available in the

> fall, 2004 at www.seedsofdeception.com. The website

> also describes how to avoid eating GM foods.

>

>

----------

> ----

>

> © Copyright 2004 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is

> granted to reproduce

> this in whole or in part.

>